2 Questions Why is this one in colour? And why is the crop so tight (left and bottom)? Lycaon 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Info The engraving is as it was scanned; the hue/slight colour is the same as how it appears in the newsmagazine. And the original engraving is not perfectly rectangular, hence it may appear as though the crop is too tight. However, you may perhaps prefer the second version; black and white with a wider crop. :) RedCoat 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Moire pattern in hills of the top image; the scan needs more resolution. There's dots instead of lines in a couple of the others. Is this from the original print, or a reproduction? Because that's a common reproduction error for engravings. Adam Cuerden 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oops, I hadn't noticed that; the moire pattern can really be detrimental. The thin lines cause it in this case don't they? And it's an original engraving though. RedCoat 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, Moire's a problem with engravings. I don't mind if it shows Moire when shrunk by wikipedia - hell, one of my uploaded engravings does that - but it shouldn't have it at full, and this one does. Still, if you have the original, it shouldn't be too hard to scan it at a somewhat higher resolution, in which case I'll definitely support. Forgive the questioning about the dots in those grey skies - it's not a common engraving technique, so it's better to double check it's not an artefact of reproduction. (But I'm happy to believe you that it's not) Adam Cuerden 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support more African pictures, more equity. Dantadd✉ 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this picture. It's nice and clear and sharp, with enough light where it needs to be and a good composition, IMHO. But should I oppose to cancel out your vote? I have put up many of my own pictures for FP candidates, and so far, I have not succeeded. Is it because people don't like me? I don't think so. I think it is because they don't like my photos, as you say, they keep finding problems with them. So I listen, and I learn, and I think I am getting better at taking photos with less problems. People here want good pictures. It doesn't matter where they come from. Support. Ben Aveling 10:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dantadd, the red dragonfly is also fro Africa :)

Support Not because it is from Africa, but because it is sharp, has great composition, and alot of wow factor. --Digon3talk 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support good quality and nice composition --AngMoKio 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support His position is a little unusual, but I like it. It's dynamic, and shows everything we need to see. Plus everything's wonderfully sharp and focused. Great work! Adam Cuerden 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose lighting is quite unfortunate (harsh, half of the body is in shadow) -- Gorgo 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think the image is a bit oversaturated now. Gemsbok tend to be rather greyish than brown. Of course the rich morning light would slightly alter that impression... Lycaon 12:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I don't know enough about them to decide which is more accurate. I'll let others decide, but one version should definitely be promoted. Adam Cuerden 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I prefer this version, even if I've never seen a Gemsbock I believe there's no unreal colors. - Keta 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is difficult. Technically quite good, and it has wow too. I'm not to sure about the cylindrical projection though, I have problems visualizing the bridge in real life. So I won't vote as yet. Lycaon 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is a valid argument for opposing the picture. Would have you supported the same picture, if it was taken by a South American tourist? --Mbz1 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

We need more FP of Latin American subjects. It doesn't matter who takes the picture. Dantadd✉ 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agry we need more high value pictures from all over the world including Latin American subjects. Yet I'm not sure how opposing of that European picture could help to introduce the pictures from Latin America? There's no limit in the pictures that could get FP status.--Mbz1 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Well' you're right, but until we have a more fair distribution I'll oppose all European and North American picture. That's my personal opinion. Dantadd✉ 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody could have their own opinion and, if I were you, I would have tried to find some interesting Latin America pictures, which are in public domain, upload them to Wikipedia and nominate them on FP simply because opposing all European and North American pictures will not help your couse while nominating more Latin America pictures could help.--Mbz1 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

I'm gonna do it. In fact, I already did it with this beautiful historical picture (Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg), but, as always, the same users have found a hundred of unforgivable flaws in it. Dantadd✉ 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a pity if this forum became a place for fighting over national or continental representation. So far I thought this was about good pics, but I just learned that you can't hide from politics :-) --Christoph Michels 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we must have to things in mind: good pictures and fair representation. If the election is just a matter of quality we already have the Quality Picture nomination. Please, take a look on the FP category: it's not fair what we see there. It's not a matter of politics, but everybody wants to feel represented. Dantadd✉ 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How can it be a matter of representation without being a matter of politics? And how can you then demand one sort of politics (continentalism?)only? If we start this debate here we should also take into consideration all issues of fair representation, e.g. gender, nations, continents, species, humans/non-humans, classes, ethnic groups, religions, political parties (you could extend this list endlessly depending what kind of politics you are interested in.)But I think this issue (for this forum) had been settled long time ago. And at least I understood that FP is about (a politics of) representing high quality images with an encyclopedic value. If you have the feeling that some pictures are discriminated due to their origin you are right in yelling out loud. But: From looking at the way people argue here I do not share your perception. And: I can't understand why you then start to discriminate others due to their origin. --Christoph Michels 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have never seen such a ridiculous argument on Commons. Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?

I think this vote should be crossed out and not counted as Featured pictures is not about expressing personal political/ideological views, but selecting good quality pictures. What if somebody votes against a picture of a politican saying "I don't like him, he's a liar"? This vote is a dangerous precedent. --Derbethtalk 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The dangerous precedent has already been set. Just look at the FP category. Ridiculous argument is "Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?" This is not a political or ideological view, it's just a matter of equity, but it seems that a lot of people is getting angry because somebody noticed that there's is a wrong systematic in play here. Dantadd✉ 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are really funny. Now YOU (Dantadd) are the only one who opposes a picture because of the country where it is coming from (what a disgusting reason). If we all start a behaviour like you are doing here, we will soon have a mess here. That you as a Commons Administrator give such statements here is quite shocking for me. Again the nationality is of no matter here...i don't care if we have many pictures from Europe here...i want that commons becomes a source for good pictures. If we give low quality pictures with no composition the FP-status, then the FP in general will lose its value and we can close it down all together. But you don't seem to understand that - FP-status is only for the best pictures. --AngMoKio 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really wrong. I tried, but you seem not to agree that there's an absurd and blatant inequity in the features pictures. I'm not here by myself. This problem was brought to me by two editors on pt.wiki. There's just a sentiment of impotence and impossibility of a even minor representation here. But, you won. Keep going and thinking that everything is perfect. This is not a matter of electing bad pictures, I'm not asking that. I'm asking to little techinal flaws to be forgiven in order to have more equity. Just that. If it's just a matter of quality, why have two parallel elections to decide it?. I don't understand. That's my final comment on this. Dantadd✉ 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dantadd, we have more FPs of mammals (even without counting pictures of humans) than of beetles, while there can be aroung 350,000 species of choleoptera in the world, but less than 5,000 species of mammals. If this was a matter of fair representation, we should oppose every nomination of pics of mammals, and forgive flaws on beetle pictures until we reached equity among subjects. But we don't. We apply the same criteria (not just quality but also interestingness, uniqueness and usefulness - differences between QIs and FPs can be read in the instructions) to images, regardless of taxonomic class, order, or continent. Opposing a picture just with the comment too many European FP pictures looks as strange as opposing a pic of an oryx commenting too many FP of mammals. It's true that we have a bigger want of images of Latin American beetles than of European mammals, but we should have more FP of both types. --Javier ME 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we sought equity among cities instead of among continents? If I found a second excellent and informative image of Brasilia, should I abstain of featuring it until we featured at least one of all the other cities which currently have none? I think we should feature more images, even if they were from Segovia , a minor European city of which there is already one FP. The problem with Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg was neither its continent nor it had a hundred of unforgivable flaws. It was that its values were not enough to overcome the certain flaws it had. I agree with Dantadd, however, in that the first questioned reason of the amount of European FPs were not probable "Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed?". It's very difficult to say if Europe has more skilled photographers than America, but it's easy to guess that the proportion of people with good photographical equipment and affordable access to Internet is higher in Japan, Western Europe or North America than in parts of Latin America or Africa. I also understand that taking photos of humans is easier than taking photos of insects without the proper makro equipment and skills, but anyway I suspect there is specism here and some voters are more interested in images of humans than of beetles, so we'll hardly reach equity in this :P --Javier ME 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I dislike this projection. For architecture such as this, one cannot truly appreciate what this looks like, which dramatically detracts from its value. It may have lots of detail, but what good is detail if you don't know what it really looks like to the human eye? I prefer the projection used in this version. Its technical quality is why it is a QI, but IMO it's not a FP. -- Ram-Man 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Very unusual shape, high wow factor. --Derbethtalk 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have to agree with Ram-Man. Judging from some of the other votes, people don't realize what is depicted here. Quality and wow are high though. Lycaon 09:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose That is just too huge an angle of view to be projected usefully on a flat surface. Is there no possibility to go further away and shoot this with a more tele lens? --MichaD | Michael Apel 10:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Info Not really, short of a completely different view. I had the time to wander around. As Ram-Man has found here and here one can go slightly back, but bushes start blocking the view. Further back the village starts, and from the other side you get no sunlight onto the bridge. And this photo may help to explain effects of cylindrical projection. -- Klaus with K 11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment What if we trimmed a bit off the sides of the rectilinear, to remove the heavily distorted trees, then nominated it? Adam Cuerden 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It still leaves the distorted pillars on the rectilinear. I think I am finding out the hard way that a mere flat screen is inadequate to display a panorama. -- Klaus with K 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Info Acknowledging some private discussions I feel that these are justification enough for me to say that illustrating the railway viaduct from the gallery above the right photo is presumably the best choice (unless one prints the image on a semicircular screen) but imaging the viaduct with its dominant horizontal and vertical components and also some fine structure in the girders the left photo can well illustrate the properties of a cylindrical projection. Rectilinear and equirectangular projections to serve as comparisons are now available as well. -- Klaus with K 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Ack Ram-Man - so I normally would Oppose, but I marked my vote as neutral because there is one more Oppose listed here than it should be. Now the final calculation should be fair again. Andreas Tille 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You bring back a level playing field — Thank you. -- Klaus with K 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It's l'art pour l'art, no information value, on the contrary. On the other hand, the argumentation of Dantadd is very dangerous and inacceptable. In football it is Latin America, which is overrepresented, but nobody in his healthy mind would consider to limit their participation.--Szilas 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is too small. -- Lycaon 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Oppose Atrocious quality!! Look at it full res ppl. Coming from a EOS 1D II N and a high end 16-35 (presumably) someone must have really butchered this in PS. Massive haloing from I suspect unsharp filter of amount 60-100%, 40-60 radius and threshold around 1 --Fir0002www 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Full res on this is a lot of pixels. We are allowed to promote something if it looks good enough at > 2M, even if it doesn't look so good at the full 8M.Question Is it just me, or is it tilted? Regards, Ben Aveling 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like a lot of engravings, the borders are a little off. I've partially straightened the captions, though there's a bit of a compromise in not making the unparallel bottom line look too tilted. I swear, how could Victorians be this good at engraving, but unable to make parallel lines in the frames for their exquisite art? Adam Cuerden 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Aside from the noise, it's not sharp/lacking in detail, especially since it's a (down sampled) panorama. Also am I the only one who sees a wierd glow along the ridges between the far mountains and the sky? And too be even more picky, you should remove the three (dust?) spots in the sky on top of the mountain near the RHS of the pano... --Fir0002www 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The photo is very nice, I guess the info will be corrected soon. - Keta 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Support The colours tones make it looks like a very good painting to me :) Benh 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to the gallery Swifts Creek, Victoria and put a link to there in the description. And it is in the category:Victoria, Australia --benjamint

Question Is this a golf course, or does the landscape just look like that? Spikebrennan 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Doesn't anyone other than me look at this pictures full res? I hate to say this, particularly since I'm quite pro-Photoshop editing/cloning/whatever and Ben is a friend of mine, but I can't stand by and see this get FP status without bringing this up. As can be seen by the separation b/w mountains and sky (white fuzz) the sky is almost certainly courtesy of PS gradient tool - ie it is fake. Looks to me as though the sky was completely blown in the image, and a simply blue gradient has been used (and a rather poor cut out spoiling the image). Note: if it was well done (unlike it's current state!) so that you couldn't tell I wouldn't have any problem with this. --Fir0002www 08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As per Fir0002, there is a definite glow around the hills on the far side. Please correct it so I can change my vote on this otherwise fine picture. --Nattfodd 00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Faint horizontal structures/lines in the sky (I presume from horizontal blurring). Also not fully convinced about parts of the horizon line. Apart from that a fine view, I like the colours. -- Klaus with K 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Lovely painting, but if you look at in in full resolution, everything's full of red, green and blue flecks, like a George Seurrat painting. I'd be extremely surprised if an early 19th-century painting really looked like that up close. Adam Cuerden 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I love J L David, but colours of this reproduction fail. I have an illustration of this work on a book and colours look softer. --Javier ME 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Lot of chromatic noise. I thought that he EOS400D at 1600ISO was better than this (I have the 20D, older). -- J-Luc 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Apparently, he used DPP to process a RAW file, and maybe noise are that visible because of the NR settings. Benh 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The arch at the top is not straight-- is this per the original, or is the scan crooked or a bit bent? Spikebrennan 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

- It's the original. I improved a bit the colours in the Commons, but I didn't re-load the picture here. It is a more than 3 meter high painting, it is no use to get too close to it, not even when studying the full resolution...--Szilas 11:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment You can find the left upper part of the backrgound structure curved in printed versions of the picture, too. --Javier ME 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Portraits are always deeply subjective, but I don't think this picture of a monk captures any particularly strong human emotion, which is needed for a wow-factor. -- Ram-Man 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question Face and hands look good. But very white behind her head and arms - is that an accurate reproduction of the original? Ben Aveling 17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the feet and the area around that. It appears to be the sort of cracking you get in lots of oil paintings, but I can't find any copy that's not from the ARC as well. It doesn't look like it was scanned from a book (the ARC scans from some books, and the results show artifacts); I think this is part of the actual painting. grendel|khan 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The unfocused bush in the lower left corner is very distracting for me. --Digon3talk 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - The texture and colours of the animal's hair are beautifully rendered in the photograph. But the composition is not good enough mainly because of the distrating background. Maybe it could be artificialy blurred? - Alvesgaspar 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the background is a bit distracting and i would prefer to see the zebra a bit more from the front...but sharpness of the zebra is great--AngMoKio 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I seem to have problems judging the suitability of my own pictures for FP. I guess I should leave that more to others :-)). Thanks for the critics.Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that problem has everyone --Simonizer 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

InfoA great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. Please note, we did not try to catch a shark. We did try to bring sharks closer to the cages. No shark was hurt. The picture is a digital copy of my old film picture.

Comment I know that one will be very hard for you to support. After all it is a digigat copy of my old film picture. I know that community will rather support a sharp and common flower, than that rare image. Still I'd like to remind everybody one criteria of Guidelines for nominators, which states: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." The nominated picture is not a bad picture, yet it is a digital copy of an old film picture. --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Oppose Ok, it's a hard and extraordinary photo. But it worse that hard - not FP.--Beyond silence 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No surprise here. Oh well,I guess you're right. It is not fp picture. Anyway it would have been out of place between sharp flowers and bugs, but I still believe that this image is much more encyclopedic, has much more value(which in my opinion is the most important thing) than many FP pictures both on Wikipedia and Commons do.--Mbz1 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Comment I'd like to explain what I meant under digital copy. That image is a digital picture of my old film picture, in other words it is a picture of a picture (I have no scanner)--Mbz1 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Question Can you try to make a new scan of the neg, with a new lab or with the same but asking them to make no correction on it, in particular the contrast ? Because I'm sure that with a good lab, the photograph will be much, much better, the problem coming from the digitalization. Sting 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember it is not a scan at all. It is a picture of a picture. I'm not sure where to look for the lab that does neg scans and besides I'm too laizy to bother, but maybe I will for that picture. Thanks--Mbz1 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Opposeboth. Low quality image, and doesn't strike me as being very good compositionally either. It looks to me a pretty standard shot [1][2][3][4][5][6] from one of these diving trips. Would have liked to see one with a bit more action [7][8] or at least minus the obviously unnatural rope line [9] --Fir0002www 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

#3 is not bad, only too small. #7 and 8 are great.I like #9 too. I wonder, if the guy will agree to upload it to Wikipedia with a free licence and without a water mark. #1,2,4,5 and 6 also nice images, but in my opinion my image is much more interesing. Anyway you did your homework. Thanks and have a nice day.--Mbz1 02:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

not because it is not passing. I knew from the beginning it will not pass, not even because it gets opposed(you know I do like opposes almost as much as I like supports), but rather because the way it gets opposed especially by fir0002. Of course user made some progress and instead of commenting on my spelling, like he's done on other occasion, he tries to comment on the image. Well for some reason, his comments do not feel right. I would not mindany comments from one, who was in cage with sharks. I would not mind valid comments from everybody else.I do mind sarcastic and unfair comments from the one, whos very best wild life image is a supper quality and a supper no value (in my opinion) image of a head of giraffe taken in a nearby zoo.What was also rather surprising that all very nice samples, which fir0002 shared with us were taken not from Wikipedia. It is really strange to me because just few days ago fir0002 wrote to me: "Wikipedia doesn't want people to get the info from another site, it wants to give the people the information." Thanks to all, who wanted to oppose the image, but never did.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 06:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

no way to take this photo again. Size will remain 1.34Mpixel .. --Zedh 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Comment I like the concept Satyakam proposed but it is not unique enough to compensate the size and some distracting elements. Agree with Lycaon. --Javier ME 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Composition. There doesn't seem to be a subject and any interesting things are probably in the hills. I would suggest trying a panorama for this. --Digon3talk 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Info As Szilas said, there doesn't need to be a specific subject here other than the valley extending into infinity. What I tried to express through this shot was the very particular mood we were into after getting through this pretty hard pass (the highest point of the whole trail) and seeing this endless valley unroll upon us, with evening light and a really peaceful/melancholic set of mind. I guess the real subject is the perspective and the mood. --Nattfodd 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - It's exactly the speciality of this part of the world, that you won't find anything interesting for the first sight. Emptyness and tranquillity prevail. Very characteristic and very good picture.--Szilas 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Too shallow DoF resulting in unsharpness, especially in the foreground. Most landscapes need both tripods and small apertures. This picture has been either cropped or downsampled as well, for some reason. Special note should be made though that this is perfect use of a human subject to provide scale. -- Ram-Man 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is a well known coral. Here's the image I took in New Guinea--Mbz1 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

As Mbz1 already mentioned, this is a quite a common solitary coral from the genus Fungia. Moreover, it is not the back or the front side but the top which is showing ;-). They are rather odd amongst corals, because they move around over the bottom of the sea. Please change the name of the file at earliest convenience. Lycaon 08:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So change it to Fungia Coral Top Macro? Always learning. Done File name changed. --Digon3talk 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Same like the other picture of this animal: I think the picture is just not good enough to be a featured picture. The composition and the perspective are bad, and it looks like a snapshot. -- Christoph Leeb 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because underexposed. -- Lycaon 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because not sharp and the subject has not been identified. -- Lycaon 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Comment It doesn't seem to be a Rainbow Lorikeet. Please don't close the nomination yet, as I will ask someone at my local Wikipedia. Is there someone here that is good in editing images, then please make it sharper around the head and other important places. — H92(t · c · no) 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support As per this nomination, this is sufficiently different from this FP for the same reason. It has much more detail and is a better illustrative/encyclopedic shot of a butterfly. -- Ram-Man 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we could delist the prior one?--Mbz1 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

They should be different enough. One is about the butterfly, the other is about the context: the flower, the eating, etc. They serve different purposes. If you look at that other nomination, it's almost the exact same issue, and we decided to keep both. -- Ram-Man 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I agree, it is better than the other one! Lycaon 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Lovely portrait at small sizes, but noisy in the largest. Unnecesarily horizontal, while there is a better cropped and colour edited version Image:Simphiwe Dana Wien2007aa.jpg --Javier ME 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am aware, that lighting and sharpness are not the best (it was an open-air concert in the shadow of a building, not a portrait-shooting in a studio). As far as the edited version is concerned: in my eyes, while the light may be "better", the image loses most of its atmosphere when cropped and color-edited (and the noise increases). --Tsui 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Noise and the fact that part of the head is cropped off. --Digon3talk 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Support This is an extremely graceful and, may I say it, soulful pose and the opposers are a bunch of accountants who miss the intricate beauty of the image in their search for technical flaws :) I'd consider alternative edits though. ~ trialsanderrors 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Great facial expression. Some technical flaws but they are all tolerable for a event shot in my opinion. The light is not unfortunate, it fits the impression. The face is visible, thats important. I dont care if the headress is cut. Thats very common in portrait photography. But i also would like to see a vertical format. --Simonizer 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral First of all: This picture is great! But i would really prefer a color-improved version of this one. I prefer this uncroped version in this format...maybe it is possible to crop a little on the right side to move her a bit to the right side in order to "de-center" her a bit. But you have my support if you upload a color-improved version of this one. --AngMoKio 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I did an edit here, trying to focus on the skin tone and reduce pixel grain. I'm still not perfectly satisfied, and if people keep complaining about the cropped headdress it might not be worth nominating. ~ trialsanderrors 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is not bad. Though I have to say I like the format of this original picture. Well about the cropped headdress...the crop of the head is perfect and has to be like that. To crop upper parts of heads is a very common composition for portraits.--AngMoKio 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Info After reading and considering the comments above I was tempted to load up another edited version. But there are too many different recommendations: vertical or horizontal format (on de.wikipedia someone also mentioned square), more or less correction of color and/or light etc. ... there does not seem to be one version to satisfy all viewers (for enzyklopedic use, there are already two edited images, one by myself, one by by trialsanderrors). Personally I like the image just as it is, with the blurry background (including the black area at the left, which, to me, works as a visual completion of the image), with the cut headdress (otherwise the bust-like portrait would lose its vertical balance) and the bluish-pale colors which support the atmosphere); so I wont load up another edit for FPC. Nevertheless: thank you for all comments, feedback is always very welcome :-) Tsui 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Good portrait of a nice lady in a beatiful posture. Unfortunately the photographic quality is far from adequate for FP status. The edited version has better colours and crop but the chromatic noise is just too much. - Alvesgaspar 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I have taken a lot of concert images, it's always very hard. This one is nice. J-Luc 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose crop, noise, picture has still a harsh lighting and a not in the imagedescription declared edited background --Simonizer 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because considered not featured just a few days ago. -- Lycaon 13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Oppose The color is much better and it now looks like it was taken in warm evening light streaming through trees or something similar. However, the noise and lack of detail, especially in that of the swan's underside, prevents me from supporting. This should be closer to perfection for an FP, but the picture is certainly now more useful. -- Ram-Man 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Thanks Lycaon, clearly much improved. The original image is straight from camera, except for cropping. (The original, uncropped, is at Image:Swan displaying.6669.JPG) The light was mid afternoon, through trees. So basically shade, but not completely. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I cannot oppose this superb composition. But the noise is still quite obvious. - Alvesgaspar 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is a male (Quail not Quayle) and he was watching over his family, who was feeding in the grass just below him. It is what they usually do, when they have chiks.--Mbz1 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Comment Downsampling simply means reducing the resolution of a picture from 3888 × 2916 to, say, 2000 x 1500. Its simple and increases sharpness in most cases, and even a bad PS should be able to do it. --Digon3talk 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral I do not see noise being a big problem here, after having seen too many "noise-free" overprocessed flat-looking images. Maybe crop 10-15% at the bottom. -- Klaus with K 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I should a have a new picture with a blurred and darkened background uploaded soon, and I will nominate that. Consider this Withdrawn and thanks for the comments and suggestions. --Digon3talk 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support This is the third in a series of FP-quality pictures of this very popular and diverse species. The pictures are all very different aspects of the same species, so there is no issue with too many similar pictures. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could you brighten it up a bit? --Digon3talk 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are two reasons it wasn't lightened more: 1) The pink colors look more washed or a little less intense and 2) The dried flower on the right will then have an overexposed hotspot. Perhaps you just want a brighter background? -- Ram-Man 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a brighter background would be nice. --Digon3talk 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. But I don't like the changes. I prefer the contrast in this version. -- Ram-Man 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could remove it in PS. It is just too good of a picture to let it go like that.--Mbz1 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

ConditionalOppose When the line in bottom quarter is removed, change this to support. --Digon3talk 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can someone please explain what is shown here and add it to the image description page? I don't really have a clue what I see here. Furthermore I think, this image is not very usable for other wikimedia projects if there is no explaination about its content. --norro 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a satellite picture of a desert--AngMoKio 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral i support when the line got removed--AngMoKio 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - What ??? I suspect you don't know very well what you are talking about. - Alvesgaspar 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I talking about this . There is a lots of dragonfly pictures, and some is sharper then this. Now can be need more to be featured like this, I think. --Beyond silence 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are sharper images does not mean this is unsharp. You said the same thing about this and it is a QI (but it is a bit noisy, I'll download an edit soon). --Digon3talk 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Not enough sharp. About that, enough good for QI, not enough good to FP. It's my opinion, sorry. --Beyond silence 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Amazing picture, but I agree with Beyond silence, this is a bit soft. Lycaon's picture is similar, and much sharper (tough I prefer the composition here), so I don't see the need to feature this one. Benh 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my picture, it's a totally different species! Lycaon 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not talking about the species. --Beyond silence 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support A very old, rare map from Latin America...--Szilas 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think need an English description.--Beyond silence 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry, it's a lovely map, but it's not the whole map: look at the right edge. The key is cut off in a way that removes the explanation of what things are. Adam Cuerden 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposeconditional Same as above. If rescanned with key, change my oppose to support Ianaré 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Apologize friend, but not everything is English. The image has excellent resolution and an unique quality for a map of a city where the material historical lack. Greetings Fidelmoquegua 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Maybe I am just too picky but I now see horizontal streaks in the sky, and there is no fine grain/noise in the sky. -- Klaus with K 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I may change to neutral if the oppose above continues to have no reasoning given. -- Klaus with K 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Image is pixelated (look at the interface between the mountains and the sky) and I don't like the dune in the foreground, right on the center of the picture. But the colours are quite beautiful, I wonder if there are other versions. - Alvesgaspar 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I had hoped the visible vignetting in the image as first submitted would be dealt with in rerunning the stitch with vignetting correction included (like in hugin 0.6 or 0.7) and not applying a blurring filter on the output. -- Klaus with K 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I was there at the same day as Ikiwaner just a few hours earlier. What a accident. If i had known that, Ikiwaner and i could have made some kind of Wikimedia meeting there. ;-) I have some pictures of that glacier, too. I will upload them in a few days. The cavern is beautiful. The ice looks blue and glowing from inside. Very spectacular. Some words about the picture: Its a little pity that the beautiful summits in the background are covered by a big cloud, but anyway a good panorama. --Simonizer 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And I was there just two days later! --Dschwen 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Peter Isotalo; a picture of the museum ship Vasa shot from the catwalk used to service the lighting fixtures below the ceiling of the Vasa Museum. The platform is off limits to visitors and is otherwise only accessible to postcard photographers. / PeterIsotalo 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose That's a missed opportunity then :-(. The picture is far too noisy to be featured here. Sorry. Lycaon 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a technical limitation of the camera or merely a matter of settings? PeterIsotalo 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the settings can be improved upon. Check the ISO settings an put them as low as possible. If it is on Auto, it will probably revert to ISO 400 in such circumstances. With a lower ISO you will get longer shutter times, but I assume your using a tripod already anyway. The Canon PowerShot A610 can be set as ISO 50, that should reduce the grain. Illumination of the ship will always be a problem though, I'm afraid. Lycaon 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually know diddly about photography and I don't even own a tripod so I guess it might be difficult to get it up to featured quality. Especially considering how shaky one gets when hobbling about on a steel catwalk some 30 meters above the museum floor... :-) I'll see what I can do about getting the AV tech guy to get me a a few shots worth of extra photo lighting (they really only turn it on for press photos as far as I know). One thing, though: is the composition okay? PeterIsotalo 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Lucky you, I have been looking for this angle all the time I was in there! But noise is really too high for FP. --Nattfodd 07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I tried to apply some technical adjustments, but unfortunately I could not make it any better than the version I uploaded. Apparently this is extremely hard image to improve regarding noise. Unfortunately the orginal has a lot of noise, which obviously can be reduced in both luminance chrominance channels. However, what makes this tricky, is that when the noise is reduced, the detail in deck and other parts of the image starts to dissapear. Which is a really, really pity. The angle is good and such image is certainly needed by the projects. In any case, thank you Peter for contributing the image. --Thermos 09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. --Digon3talk 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Support Very nice !! despite the short depth of field. Benh 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Unfortunate framing. The portrait format is not adequate for the subject. - Alvesgaspar 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I really like this image. Unfortunately, the frog's back leg is out of focus, but I think it's OK. — H92(t · c · no) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Too shallow DOF: back and front legs are out of focus. Lycaon 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As stated above, it's a very nice picture in which main parts of the frog are well focused while other are not. Focus cannot be fixed now, but framing can. Why should we feature a picture with a failure which is so easy to fix? --Javier ME 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Info - Image was slightly sharpen and downsampled. I think it is ok now. Alvesgaspar 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If this was a wild animal then it would probably be good enough, but this is a very very common animal, and I expect absolute technical perfection in a shot like this. -- Ram-Man 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very hard to photograph common animals(pets). They usually do not want to pose.--Mbz1 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Technicallly, if this is Felis sylvestris, not Felis catus, it is a wild animal. That said, although Felis sylvestris does have that pattern quite often, "street she-cat" doesn't quite sound right as a description. Adam Cuerden 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe this picture lacks the necessary wow factor for FP status, that is easy to accept. But I don't understand why it is being rejected on the basis of technical reasons. The image is sharp, detailed, well composed, and the colours are nice and natural. DOF was carefully chosen to keep the background blurred and give some depth to the head, even at the expense of some slightly unfocused areas. I went through all pictures listed in the Felis silvestris catus page and, frankly, I couldn't find a better one (including Fir0002's). Adam Cuerten is right, the sub-species should read "Felis silvestris catus". - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The framing. The paw on the bottom is partially cut off. --Digon3talk 15:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The photo's not too dark, the frog has a dark color, i think! I may support , but has lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million). Sorry --Beyond silence 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I like the colours and composition but the image is unsharp and noisy. The bar is a little higher, rememmber?... Alvesgaspar 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The image is sharp enough but very noisy. --Digon3talk 17:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose yeah it is a bit noisy...but that wouldn't be a problem for me. It is still acceptable. But I am not convinced by the composition. I think the angle of view is not good. Btw: impressive camera...is it new? --AngMoKio 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like the red background, but it's the reflections from the lighting that made me oppose. It is also unsharp on the ends of the Tektites and there is alot of noise in and around the shadows. I did enjoy read about the Tektites and Zircons though. --Digon3talk 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the idea, I mean to make people, who are interested in minerals, to learn about tektites. I like mysteries and they are mystery. Have you known about them before?--Mbz1 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Oppose A prime example of what I was talking about here, sorry Alvesgasper but the quality at full res is not FP standard. It's full of artefacts and lacking in detail. --Fir0002www 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In the text you are referring to, you say: People just click on a image on the thumbnail, have a look at it on the image description page, see it's nice there, note that it is larger than 2000 pix and support without ever looking at it full res -that is a quite comtemptuous comment and a wild extrapolation about Commons reviewers' behaviour. You may of course, like any other user, explain the reasons behind your opposing votes on Commons FPC. But to disdain the whole FPC project just because you think the people reviewing here is careless and incompetent, is not only rude, it is false. - Alvesgaspar 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Very very nice catch but, again, not sharp enough. This picture could be half-scaled without loss of detail. Strange "ghosting" effect at the bottom part of the picture on the plant (excuse my poor english !). -- Benh 07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Info Female red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). I thought the darter season was over for me, but then I saw these two gorgeous ladies and I couldn't resist. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question would it not be better without the text? Good quality scan, btw. Lycaon 12:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I prefer these sort of things with context on the page, if it relates to them. It's interesting as a photo, but even more interesting with period thoughts on the person attached. That said, I'd be quite happy to upload a text-free version, for use on foreign wikis. Adam Cuerden 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - Very nice quality and value. However, I would recommend the picture to be downsampled to the original's size due to the type of engraving used. In this case a bigger picture doesn't add any value, on the contrary. - Alvesgaspar 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The original is a full A3 newspaper page print, so it's not actually made that much bigger. Also, you can't get the necessary detail if downsampled so that it shows on the screen at the original size: Distinct lines become patches of grey, or, worse, moiré. If you'll look, many of the lines - especially in the hair - are only seperated by a pixel. Adam Cuerden 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry to go against the flood, but I think that the composition and DOF solutions are not the best. This way, the subject of the picture (the head of the snake) doesn't come out sharply against the background. A neutral background would be much better - Alvesgaspar 18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - That was too harsh for such a good picture :) - Alvesgaspar 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Maybe a neutral background, like Alvesgaspar mentioned, would emphasize the head of the snake more, but this way it gives you a impression what the snake is doing at the moment. About DOF i agree with Lycaon. --Simonizer 09:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although this image is of low resolution and quality, it captures a historical moment excellently. This is the only known footage of the bridge's collapse, and that should be taken into account when rating this picture. It has huge historical significance and cannot be replicated, and I feel that those are strong, migrating reasons. KULSHRAX 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, I don't really see anything that can be done to fix that now, unless more footage surfaces, but this is the only know footage of the event, and footage of this kind is extremely rare, so I feel that it is acceptable, because it is possible the the security camera that caught this footage could only produce this resolution. Also, when you think about it, it is remarkable that this is in color, because the majority of security cameras are in black and white. KULSHRAX 18:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose agree with lycaon, I also can't see the "huge historical significance" of this event. It's really great to have this video here on commons but that doesn't mean it has to be featured, there are tons of pictures that are unique here. -- Gorgo 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I mean, people still talk about the Tay Bridge disaster (Victorian era), and various other fallen bridges. I can't help but think that this will be similar, at least in its local area. Adam Cuerden 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It is really extraordinary, but I think a bridge disaster not have enough historical value to counterweight the low resolution and bad composition. Sorry --Beyond silence 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see any reasons why this animation should be a FP. --AngMoKio 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support At the moment, the rules (guidelines) say that FP is about valuable pictures. This is clearly an important image, and a valuable image. If this nomination fails, then I suggest we change the written guidelines to make it clear that we want pretty pictures, and that things like historical value are nice to have, but not as important as being pretty. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think too the value is more important than being pretty. But I am not agree with you, this isn't a very important image. A war, an invention or revolution changes the history, and has a historical value. A bridge collapse is terrible, but don't change the going of world - to being terrible don't more than being pretty! --Beyond silence 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support-i do think it has an historical value, but would agree to demote it as soon as a better animations comes up... it is not only about world history but also about tecnical history. LadyofHats 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- dont like the composition. and agree with BeyondSilenceLadyofHats 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like the background shapes. It seems very distracting to me, but perhaps I'm the only one... -- Ram-Man 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Voting time was allready over --Simonizer 07:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll grant it's hard to make a bible verse dramatic, and you manage fairly well, but that's kind of an awkward printing. Dividing Jesus into "Je-" and "sus", using him instead of Him, and so on. Also, the file name is obviously inaccurate (9 for 19), and leaves out the book it's from. Adam Cuerden 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done - Your concerns have been fixed. How on Earth I saw 'chapter 9' I have no idea! I have also noted the Gospel of John, however I am afraid I can't do anything about the printing - it's a direct transcription of the King James Version which was first published in 1611. RedCoat 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is the purpose? --Beyond silence 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- even with al that corrections i do not think it has any value as FP. LadyofHats 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose While shallow DoF is a pretty obvious choice, I think there should either be a clear subject (chapter 19, a given word/sentence) or none (so just a paragraph of text with no big typesetting changes). Interesting lighting, but unfortunate crop which kills the left directing line. This kind of shot can have a very high impact, but this one lacks too much in composition and choice of the subject for a FP, imho. --Nattfodd 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Very nice work and a spectacular view rare to see. Great Wow effect! -- Mattes 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)see below

Support Great view --User:Archivaldo 11:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Please log in to vote. We can not validate an IP address (diff). Lycaon 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Its a very good motif. Unfortunately the author didnt choose a good composition. Furthermore the sky is overexposed and there is chromatic aberration visible --Simonizer 11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Info I agree that this white sky is unaesthetic, but it was cloudy so it's impossible to get something else.I propose an edit: I cropped the picture and I adjusted the levels. It's still rather dark, but the monastery is in the shadow. Vassil 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Very nice work and a spectacular view rare to see. Great Wow effect! -- Mattes 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) looks great now except it is not upright anymore... Thanks Vassi! -- Mattes 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like the crop. And technicaly noisy and unsharp.--Beyond silence 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Info Talking in the evening near the sea. Though not as good as The photographer (which I believe it is my best picture ever), this is a nice coloured example of the contre-jour photographic technique. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral i think that couple is a bit too much centered and there is a bit too much space around them. But I really like the picture...it has a nice atmosphere. --AngMoKio 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It is really a great photo. But not enough valuable. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable." It really has a photographic technique value, but after an other good example as The photographer it inflated. Sorry. --Beyond silence 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It is really a great photo. But not enough valuable. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable." It really has a photographic technique value, but after an other good example as The photographer it inflated. Sorry. --Beyond silence 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Value is a very vague word. For someone, who wants to know how a wonderful evening at the coast near Porto Covo looks like, this picture has value. So i concentrate on the picture. Beautiful Contre-jour! --Simonizer 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support For me,it's a beautiful and meaningful picture. Vassil 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose a motive seen far too often. enough for QI but not for FP-LadyofHats 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The head is a bit unclear, and I agree with Simonizer, the head is squeezed in the lower right corner. Too bad, 'cause the picture could be very nice. — H92(t · c · no) 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Info I uploaded another shot from this series here if you'd like a comparison. Note that I have not yet edited out the dust specs on that one.--Dschwen 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It seems to me that the plane of optimal DoF is not situated properly, resulting in the out-of-focus head. The composition is unfortunate. As a butterfly/caterpillar photographer myself, I wouldn't be disappointed with a shot like this, but I wouldn't expect it be a FP either. -- Ram-Man 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Nice QI photo, but does not have enough wow for me to be FP. -- Slaunger 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Barely enough for QI but far from FP status. Main flaw is the tight crop. I would suggest more space around the flower, specially at the bottom, remember the flower is "looking down". Alvesgaspar 23:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The image isn't cropped thats the full size image straight from the camera. I understand what you're saying, but I can't fix it. --He Who Laughs Last 06:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small --Simonizer 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small - Alvesgaspar 12:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Oppose - Image is pixelated. Also, if the picture was manipulated to get a black background (as it appears to be), it should be stated with a "Retouched" template. - Alvesgaspar 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Info I propose an edit: I smoothed the inside to remove the pixelisation then I sharpened the contours.It's a beautiful origami, the light of copia is better, but I'm not sure that this edit is technically good enough for an FP. Vassil 15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CommentEy thanks,Can you told me how you remove the pixels?I have tryed it but I didn´t know.

With Photoshop, I used "gaussian blur". Vassil 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support New lens (my first macro lens with a fix focal lenght), difficult light situation and uncomfortable terrain (stinging-nettles), but i think I made the best of a bad job, so i try a FP nomination--Simonizer 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Finally a macro shot with a really great composition. Great picture! --AngMoKio 10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - Agree on the composition. Pity that the lighting is not the best. Alvesgaspar 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support My vote isn't needed, but I wanted so much to tell how I actually find the lighting great... what a nice atmosphere it gives to the picture... Wonderful lighting, composition, technical qualities and so on Benh 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Not that it makes a difference, but the DoF is too shallow and the backlighting obscures the insect's details. A few months ago it might have been a featured picture, but we have more perfect insect photos. I'm not sure why people like Alvesgaspar support despite the lighting. -- Ram-Man 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Because heart (the artsy side) has prevailed over reason (the technical side). And I like to believe that I'm more on the first side... With the present hight of the bar I consider this one to be on the borderline. And though the lighting is not the best it doesn't affect much the detail on the hopper's body. Alvesgaspar 11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can tell you why I supported. We also judge the composition here...and in my opinion this is one of the very few pictures of an insect that really has a thought-out composition. For most insect pictures i can't really give a vote at all. They are quality-wise very good but seldom have a convincing composition - that's why I dont know how to handle them. --AngMoKio 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support The picture have some minor technical problems, but I think it is a hard shot. But the value is really good, and the compistion I like very much too (can see two view of turtle at once!). The lighting is good, at specialy on the main part the face too. And the resulotion is high, so I support. --Beyond silence 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both are cut; composition (too much space on the left, angle of top turtle); color/quality of lower turtle is also not that great -- Gorgo 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Of course in my opinion your image is much worse than my image you compare yours to. More turtles not always equal better. Yet because it is an underwater image, and I could corespond with taking underwater pictures, I support it.--Mbz1 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Support-All in all, considering the circunstances i think it is good and informative LadyofHats 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question hmm (again, sorry): is this a bend, a corner or is this a straight part with an exotic (excusez le mot) projection? Lycaon 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a cylindrical projection, but you would have to ask Klaus with K. For this picture I think a cylindrical projection is better than a straight, equirectangular projection, which IMO would make it boring. --Digon3talk 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CommentHmmm, I just wanted to illustrate here how to remove some dust...and now that. Yes it is a cylindrical projection, in panorama context I would call that a bog-standard projection. The horizontal angle covered is 180 degrees, too much for a rectilinear projection. -- Klaus with K 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support catches the mood (and now with infos and cats) -- Klaus with K 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like cylindrical projection for this picture. --Lestat 10:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Question what other projection covering 180+ degrees FoV do you suggest? -- Klaus with K 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more than 180 degrees and looks like a rectilinear projection? Maybe its possible? --Digon3talk 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be rectilinear. My guess is its cylindrical too, wit a semistatistical distribution of trees you just don't notice it. In Klaus' picture there are many straight and linear elements which get distorted by the projection. No biggie for me, I prefer conserved proportions over straight lines in this case. --Dschwen 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Info Buds of a pink oleander (Nerium oleander), Lisboa, Portugal. Still taken with my old Konica Minolta. I think that the composition and colours are worth a try. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Info created by Mr. Barnard, stitched together and straightened by ADuran (VegetaU on English Wikipedia) and Rugby471 from two uploads by nominator Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Needs noise reduction and perhaps some background-only lightening. I don't like how the image below loses contrast in the insect. Even so, I'm not convinced this is quite FP material. -- Ram-Man 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Though the image description could use a lot more detail, particularly "How big is it?" and, perhaps describe Władysław Jagiełło on the lines of "King Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" or suchlike, to give context? Adam Cuerden 01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Good composition, but I think need more sharpness to be FP. Sorry --Beyond silence 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Seems unfocused in all but one spot in the middle. --Digon3talk 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting destroyed :-). It is focussed on the foreground region, the bright bg is deliberately unsharp to make the fg stand out. It was probably a mistake to upload the whole 12.8 Megapixels. --Dschwen 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose At the risk of shocking some people over here, I (weakly) oppose too, although I start to realise (just bought a macro lens) how hard it must have been to catch that one... Some people manage to catch much sharper subjects in similar conditions Image:Hoverflies_mating_midair.jpg -- Benh 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't know that it is a fair comparison, different insects, different behaviour, dragon flies fly very fast, do mating hover flies fly at full speed ? (might they just hover :-) --Tony Wills 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Support --Karelj 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Even I think, it is too much photo of insects on FPC, this one is very good.

Oppose This is a brutally difficult shot, and I wouldn't be sad if it becomes a FP despite my vote. Still the resolution is too low (because of the insane difficulty of getting closer!) and it's just not sharp enough. Impressive, but not an FP for me. -- Ram-Man 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Looks oversharpened and has blown highlights. I would have loved a bit more DOF and a landscape layout instead of a portrait view, preferably seeing the whole critter. Lycaon 12:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I cant deliver that. The lens is at its maximum with f16 at a magnification of 2,5x. --Richard Bartz 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Forget it. --Richard Bartz 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure why the comment above was crossed out. I am opposing for DoF reasons and because of what appears to be oversharpening. I'm unsure why EXIF information was not provided, since this allows me to make sure I don't oppose for bad reasons. -- Ram-Man 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Great detail of the head --Tony Wills 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend, but the dark areas of it's feathers have been lifted way too much resulting in a v. unnatural colour and high levels of noise --Fir0002www 09:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong count. 8 people supported this one. Digon3 said he supported all, but the first.--Mbz1 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

So edit 3 has 8 support-votes, too. So the situation is the same. Personally i find the colours in this version oversaturated. So i decided to feature the other version. But I dont know what to do in such a situation. The guidlines say we should feature only one picture of the same motif. So i decided to feature the last one. But if you dont agree with this decision, what else can we do? Should we consider a new nomination of both edits? --Simonizer 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Iam confused. I copy Digons Support vote and feature this one. --Simonizer 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)